BWZ vs IVV
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BWZ | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $287M | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.09% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 286 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +1.70% | +12.71% | |
| 1Y Return | +1.72% | +21.89% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.46% | +22.08% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -1.08% | +12.96% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.4% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -37.9% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 15, 2009 | May 15, 2000 |
BWZ vs IVV Performance
State Street SPDR Bloomberg Short Term International Treasury Bond ETF (BWZ) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year BWZ returned +1.72% while IVV returned +21.89%. Year to date, BWZ is up 1.70% versus a gain of 12.71% for IVV.
Over three years, BWZ compounded at +3.46% per year against +22.08% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are -1.08% and +12.96% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +7.00% annualized vs -0.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IVV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 7.4% for BWZ. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -37.9% for BWZ and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.48. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BWZ charges 0.35% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $3 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BWZ currently yields 2.09% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
BWZ and IVV share 0 holdings out of 507 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BWZ or IVV?
BWZ has an expense ratio of 0.35% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $32 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BWZ or IVV?
Over the past year BWZ returned +1.72% vs +21.89% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), BWZ annualized -0.58% vs +7.00% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BWZ or IVV?
IVV has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 7.4% for BWZ. Worst drawdown: BWZ -37.9% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both BWZ and IVV?
BWZ and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.48, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BWZ and IVV?
BWZ and IVV share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 507 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BWZ or IVV?
BWZ yields 2.09% while IVV yields 1.10%, so BWZ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.